Ultraviolet-a/b Advanced.

[GT21]

2 weeks exoterra uvb 10.0s

 

[45North]

If you need radiation to clean a pot grow...you need to rethink your pot grow hahaha.

Had 2 grows with PM issues in tent. Bleached the shit out it in between. After light treatment...zero.
I plan on breeding in tent also via natural and want to ensure no left over pollen is viable.
45N

 

[Ignignokt]

UV-C is a destroyer! Pollen, mold, virus any biological. Not a toy to be taken lightly.
Treat it like a nuclear power plant.
It can be USED safely but mistakes are permanent.
45N

A good way to remember this is what engineers that work with lasers are told, repeatedly:

" Do not stare at the light source (in their case a laser beam) with your remaining good eye"

I worked with germicidal lamps (253nm UVC) as a young lad. Wore safety glasses that filtered UVC but they didn't wrap around. Testing the lamp racks, some bounced off the inside of the lens into my eyes. Got burned, like I had been watching someone arc weld with a bit too much interest. So I always have that phrase I recall whenever I work with energetic photons.

 

[BioStimz]

My point is that human physiology is not even a good proxy for what happens in photosynthetic organisms.

It is in this instance (and many others).

UVA is an oxidative agent, which possesses the physical property to alter the chemistry or conformation of a given DNA adduct.

Both humans and plants utilize nucleotide excision repair, and NER is essential in removing major damage to DNA.

UVA-irradiation notably reduces the efficacy of the excision repair process in both humans & plants - thus diminishing the removal of promutagenic DNA adducts.

The replication-independent induction of double-strand breaks by UVA exposure, via locally generated reactive oxygen species, has been well-documented within the literature.

~

 

[BioStimz]

Why would you want to add supplemental UVA?

So here's what I've noticed anecdotally throughout my travels, when supplemental UVA was used instead of UVB for the purpose of increasing trichome-density:

1. Trichome-gland degradation (confirmed under magnification)

2. Bleaching (I believe this is attributed to site-specific ROS-formation following excessive UVA-irradiation)

3. Inhibition of plant metabolism

4. Attenuated psychoactive-effects


~

 

[GT21]

So here's what I've noticed anecdotally throughout my travels, when supplemental UVA was used instead of UVB for the purpose of increasing trichome-density:

1. Trichome-gland degradation (confirmed under magnification)

2. Bleaching (I believe this is attributed to site-specific ROS-formation following excessive UVA-irradiation)

3. Inhibition of plant metabolism

4. Attenuated psychoactive-effects


~

What did you use? What ratio of uv watts to hid watts did you use? How close were the bulbs? Uv has only made all weed better and i usually run a couple few strains at a time.

 

[BioStimz]

What did you use? What ratio of uv watts to hid watts did you use? How close were the bulbs? Uv has only made all weed better and i usually run a couple few strains at a time.

Well these are just things that I've noticed from friends running dedicated UVA. I've personally only ran high-output T5, 40-watts dedicated 280-315 nm at 15%.

Granted, I think they were way high at around 55-60 watts, but my point is that there is nothing within the literature suggesting that supplemented 320-390 nm does anything whatsoever for increasing trichome-density.

~

 

[GT21]

How close was it.
https://www.thcfarmer.com/community/threads/increasing-resin-production-and-density.92024/page-4
They dabble in the subject of uvb...not a real old thread either

 

[BioStimz]

Uv has only made all weed better and i usually run a couple few strains at a time.

Have you ran dedicated 320-390 nm and actually seen an increase in trich-density?

I'm not arguing anyone's experience, and I'm glad to hear about your results. I just haven't seen anything good from it.

 

[GT21]

Have you ran dedicated 320-390 nm and actually seen an increase in trich-density?

I'm not arguing anyone's experience, and I'm glad to hear about your results. I just haven't seen anything good from it.

I like uvb not A. And if you domt use them right its a waste... At 12 inches they measure at 500 lux..at 4 inches they produce almost 5000

 

[BioStimz]

How close was it.

I dunno.... I'll see if he remembers.

 

[GT21]

They have never fried my plants and plants actually point toward the lights... They go to 280~290 i believe

 

[GT21]

I keep them under a foot

 

[BioStimz]

They have never fried my plants
They go to 280~290 i believe

Yeah, same here.

It's 320-390 nm that does all the frying.

 

[GT21]

Yeah, same here.

It's 320-390 nm that does all the frying.

All uv is radiation... Uva uvb uvc xray gamma ray... Anything past uvb is really bad for plants and animals and organisms in general. The wave length on uvb is flatter than uva.

 

[BioStimz]

All uv is radiation... Uva uvb uvc xray gamma ray... Anything past uvb is really bad for plants and animals and organisms in general. The wave length on uvb is flatter than uva.

Actually UVB can be just as harmful, as it can readily induce promutagenic cis-syn cyclobutane pyrimidine-dimers, pyrimidine/pyrimidone photoproducts, and Dewar valence photoisomers.

Refraining from excessive UV-exposure is pivotal. The right balance produces great results.

 

[GT21]

Actually UVB can be just as harmful, as it can readily induce promutagenic cis-syn cyclobutane pyrimidine-dimers, pyrimidine/pyrimidone photoproducts, and Dewar valence photoisomers.

Refraining from excessive UV-exposure is pivotal. The right balance produces great results.

Anything under uva is damage. In plants it brings out protection in humans it burns our skin till we get cancer haha

 

[GT21]

Pic 1 is the closest plant to uv bulbs.
Pic 2/3 ...28 days

People talk about uv burn a lot now a days... Fascinating opinions i have heard

 

[GT21]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1987.tb04757.x

 

[Ignignokt]

"Thus the contribution of cannabinoids as selective UV‐B filters in C. sativa is equivocal."

Awesome to see the research although I wonder about the other variables like strain. And I was a young man in 1987 and bias was quite common with anything cannabis at that time. I would say the study is ripe for a do-over.